Hammer, I insist – yea, demand! – you learn to screw!

Probably the biggest problem I have with modern coverage of the rightness/wrongness of social behaviors is its tendency to presume the actors could have acted any differently.

But what if they couldn't have?

What if their evolution-and-life-of-practicing-reared/honed/perfected default behaviors quite simply don't fit the social theories/models of those standing in judgement – especially when the latter are also more likely to automatically default to behavior at odds with said theories/models? (Especially “when no one's looking”....)

So much of Social Justice Warriors' (or whatever they're called now.. in this moment I'm preferring “Irreligious Fundamentalists”) angst/outrage seems to be over who/what people actually are.

Which, well... can what we actually are change what we actually are?

Doesn't doing that potentially unleash at least hints of unforeseen/unintended-if-not-disastrous-consequences given our modelings of ourselves are admittedly pathetically inaccurate such that we really have no idea what else might happen if we decide to crank our empathy/sympathy-for-others knob to proverbial eleven in an attempt to be more “socialistic” than “capitalistic”?

In related wonderings, should we live in a state of perpetual disappointment – if not loathing – with who/what we are when it doesn't match the latest models/theories of what we should be?

NOTE: I'm not talking about expecting young humans to learn and behave in certain ways. I'm talking more about models/theories of the moment insisting that people raised long before such models/theories somehow become capable of manifesting something other than what they spent a lifetime manifesting, or face consequences for not being able to jump over their own knees in that regard.